Mobil 1 High-Mileage oils possibly mostly alkylated naphthalene (AN) base stocks

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gokhan

Gokhan

Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
5,889
Location
Paramount, California
One of the mysteries surrounding high-mileage oils is whether they are any different than vanilla oils or they are a marketing gimmick. In fact, the Super Tech PDSs tell us that the Super Tech High-Mileage is identical to the vanilla Super Tech; therefore, in that case the only difference is the labels on the bottles.

However, this doesn't seem to be always the case and some high-mileage oils could be radically different than vanilla oils.

We already knew from Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy that all Mobil 1 oils except the Euro (FS and ESP) flavors contained the API Group V AN base stocks (Synessticâ„¢) and the Euro (FS and ESP) flavors contained the API Group V POE base stocks (Esterexâ„¢). The amount of POE base stocks in the Euro (FS and ESP) flavors is thought to be around 5 - 7% (35% FTIR oxidation). However, the amount of AN base stocks is unknown. POE is also a very expensive base stock, more expensive than the already expensive PAO. AN is likely cheaper.

I updated my base-oil viscosity and viscosity-index improver (VII) calculator to calculate the base-oil viscosity index (BO VI) along with the base-oil KV40 and base-oil KV100 (BO KV40 and BO KV100).

While the calculated base-oil viscosity index (BO VI) for most oils is within the range one would expect from the marketed, MSDS-specified, or speculated base-oil compositions of the oils, I discovered an anomaly in Mobil 1 High-Mileage (M1 HM) oils, with the base-oil viscosity index (BO VI) coming out of the calculator much lower than one would naïvely expect.

Now, the calculator assumes olefin copolymer (OCP) VII because other VII types have a hard time passing the turbocharger-deposit tests, and the base-oil viscosity index (BO VI) calculated for most oils are just one would expect. Exxon Mobil seems to use OCP VII in their oils, the so-called Infineum viscosity modifier (VM). It's possible that they chose to use a different type of VII for the M1 HM oils, which could explain the anomaly. Nevertheless, I doubt this is the case.

A possible explanation of this M1 HM anomaly is that the M1 HM base oils contain a very high amount of alkylated naphthalene (AN) base stocks. 4.7 cST AN base stock (Synessticâ„¢ 5) has VI = 74 and 12.4 cSt AN base stock (Synessticâ„¢ 12) has VI = 105. These would lower the base-oil viscosity index (BO VI) substantially. As I said before, we already knew that all Mobil 1 oils except the Euro (FS and ESP) flavors contained AN base stocks and the Euro (FS and ESP) flavors contained POE base stocks. The results of the calculator are suggesting that the amount of the AN base stocks in the M1 HM oils are much higher than in other M1 oils.

In fact, the AN base stocks are used as seal swellers and engine-deposit cleaners, which are therefore very suitable for high-mileage oils:

Information by TRiiSO on Exxon Mobil Synesstic AN base stocks

It would be very interesting if the Mobil 1 High-Mileage oils are indeed made of the Synessticâ„¢ Group V alkylated naphthalene (AN) base stocks.

The full discussion and the latest base-oil viscosity and viscosity-index improver (VII) table is here:

Latest base-oil viscosity and viscosity-index improver (VII) table
 
You might be onto something. It's hard for me, using my phone, to compare the BO VI of the M1 HM oils against the non-HM versions. If you don't mind, will you please put that data in a format in this thread where it can be easily, visually compared?
 
Originally Posted by JAG
You might be onto something. It's hard for me, using my phone, to compare the BO VI of the M1 HM oils against the non-HM versions. If you don't mind, will you please put that data in a format in this thread where it can be easily, visually compared?

Not including M1 AP because there is no reliable KV40 data in the data sheets.

Note that there are two Synessticâ„¢ Group V alkylated naphthalene (AN) base stocks: 4.7 cSt AN base stock (Synessticâ„¢ 5) has VI = 74 and 12.4 cSt AN base stock (Synessticâ„¢ 12) has VI = 105. The thinner one has a much lower viscosity index (VI) and would have a higher impact on the VI of the base-oil blend (BO VI).

Code
Oil base-oil viscosity index (BO VI)



Mobil 1 AFE 0W-16 116

Mobil 1 AFE 0W-30 105

Mobil 1 EP 0W-20 135

Mobil 1 EP 10W-30 120

Mobil 1 EP 5W-20 121

Mobil 1 EP 5W-30 109

Mobil 1 EP HM 0W-20 128

Mobil 1 EP HM 5W-20 135

Mobil 1 EP HM 5W-30 101

Mobil 1 ESP Formula 0W-40 133

Mobil 1 FS 0W-40 134

Mobil 1 HM 0W-20 127

Mobil 1 HM 10W-30 117

Mobil 1 HM 10W-40 99

Mobil 1 HM 5W-20 117

Mobil 1 HM 5W-30 86

Mobil 1 TDT 5W-40 107

Mobil 1 vanilla 0W-20 130

Mobil 1 vanilla 10W-30 108

Mobil 1 vanilla 5W-20 119

Mobil 1 vanilla 5W-30 111

Mobil 1â„¢ ESP x2 0W-20 149

Mobil Delvac Super 1300 15W-40 CK-4/SN 116

Mobil Super 3000 D1 5W-30 113 (no HTHSV data, guessed it as 3.1 cP)
 
Thanks. The relatively low BO VI applies dramatically to 5W-30 HM and 10W-40 HM. 5W-30 EP HM is also on the low side but not as dramatically. For some HM oils, the BO VI is actually higher than the vanilla version of the same viscosity grade. To me, what you said appears to be supported by the data for 5W-30 HM and 10W-40 HM but is inconclusive or not supported for the other viscosity grades.

I used to notice than the M1 HM oils had relatively high densities compared to the vanilla versions of same viscosity grade. ANs and esters tend to have higher densities than Groups II-IV oils of similar viscosity, so I used to wonder if the density anomalies were due to M1 HM oils using more ANs and/or esters than vanilla M1 versions. If we can see a scatter plot of BO VI vs density for HM oils and vanilla versions, we can get a better idea of whether there is a nice relationship between the densities, BO VI, and whether the oil is HM or vanilla M1. It may give somewhat supporting or somewhat refuting evidence of the hypothesis that the 5W-30 HM BO VI anomaly is due to extra use of AN.
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan
In fact, the PDSs tell us



N O T H I N G

The PDS tells us NOTHING about how the oil is actually formulated/blended/recipe etc. etc. etc.
 
Originally Posted by JAG
Thanks. The relatively low BO VI applies dramatically to 5W-30 HM and 10W-40 HM. 5W-30 EP HM is also on the low side but not as dramatically. For some HM oils, the BO VI is actually higher than the vanilla version of the same viscosity grade. To me, what you said appears to be supported by the data for 5W-30 HM and 10W-40 HM but is inconclusive or not supported for the other viscosity grades.

I used to notice than the M1 HM oils had relatively high densities compared to the vanilla versions of same viscosity grade. ANs and esters tend to have higher densities than Groups II-IV oils of similar viscosity, so I used to wonder if the density anomalies were due to M1 HM oils using more ANs and/or esters than vanilla M1 versions. If we can see a scatter plot of BO VI vs density for HM oils and vanilla versions, we can get a better idea of whether there is a nice relationship between the densities, BO VI, and whether the oil is HM or vanilla M1. It may give somewhat supporting or somewhat refuting evidence of the hypothesis that the 5W-30 HM BO VI anomaly is due to extra use of AN.

These are the densities from the PDSs:

Synessticâ„¢ 5: 0.908
Synessticâ„¢ 12: 0.887

They are indeed pretty heavy.

Another possibility is that the VII is somewhat heavier than the base oil and increases the oil's density. Typical OCP seems to have a density of 0.855 or higher.

If you look at my spreadsheet, I have the MSDS data on the base oil. The PAO and GTL content highly varies. The AN and POE are not shown in the MSDS as they are not hazardous.

Of course, there is the usual caveat regarding the type of the OCP VII. I used the "Infineum viscosity modifier" from the Exxon Mobil blending guide but if they use something with drastically different characteristics, you would have to readjust the parameter in the spreadsheet that is currently set to 13.7 (highlighted in red) and see what happens. Also, the results are only as good as the input data taken from the PDSs.

In any case, we are seeing some big anomaly in some of the M1 oils that is unlikely to result from small errors in the input data or the adjustable parameter in the spreadsheet, and the AN base stocks seem to be a possible explanation. However, this doesn't rule out other possibilities. FTIR spectroscopy would certainly provide an answer if the AN base stocks are what is causing the anomaly.
 
Originally Posted by Linctex
Originally Posted by Gokhan
In fact, the PDSs tell us



N O T H I N G

The PDS tells us NOTHING about how the oil is actually formulated/blended/recipe etc. etc. etc.


Exactly. Had a machine coolant at work that my skin apparently hated. But nothing in the PDS/MSDS showed up as being that bad. There can be things in there that they don't have to declare.
 
All I know is that Mobil 1 5W-20 HM seemed to stop the consistently weepy seal on my fathers 06' Ford Taurus 3.0-Vulcan. The previous fill was Smitty's HM 5W-30...
 
Last edited:
Interesting hypothesis. I'd like to see some type of solvency test between the HM and regular M1. I suppose that would give some indication of whether these oils have more AN/POE in them.

If you read the wording of the M1 0w40 FS, it specifically states that oil uses "ultra" high end base oils and has "exceptional cleaning ability for dirty engines." This is due to the POE base oils.

I guess the question then based on Gokhan's analysis is wheter the BO VI discrepencies are due to the VII's or AN's.
 
It's great that you've put so much time in researching this oil, but for me I'm not sure what to make of it. How does the HM version of M1 compare to the regular version? Is this AN basestock better or worse? I've been interested considering that the HM 5w-30 is in my car right now.
 
I find it interesting that when I raised density in one of the other threads, regarding the placement of the 5W30 mobils in the HTFSV, I was poo pooed for the argument, as density is impacted on by more things than base oil, so was not a valid comparison...but now, here it IS valid.

,,,,hmmmm
 
Originally Posted by CharlieJ
It's great that you've put so much time in researching this oil, but for me I'm not sure what to make of it. How does the HM version of M1 compare to the regular version? Is this AN basestock better or worse? I've been interested considering that the HM 5w-30 is in my car right now.

Here are the marketing claims on the Exxon Mobil AN, POE, and PAO base stocks:

Synessticâ„¢ Group V alkylated naphthalene (AN):

Increased thermal and oxidative stability
Increased hydrolytic stability
Good additive solvency
Seal compatibility

Esterexâ„¢ Group V esters [mainly polyol esters (POE) used in motor oil]:

Good thermal and oxidative stability
Low volatility
Detergency and dispersancy
Lubricity
Biodegradability

SpectraSynâ„¢ Group IV polyalphaolefins (PAO):

High VI for enhanced wear protection and energy efficiency
Low-temperature fluidity for optimal flow
Low volatility to minimize oil consumption
Excellent thermal and oxidative stability for long drain intervals

In addition, Exxon Mobil claims that the alkylated naphthalene (AN) base stocks can achieve the benefits of polyol ester (POE) base stocks to a good extent without competing with the antiwear (AW)/extreme-pressure (EP)/friction-modifier (FM) additives for surfaces and increasing wear as POE esters do. Also, AN base stocks are cheaper than the POE base stocks.

Therefore, AN base stocks are excellent, truly synthetic Group V base stocks.

Now, here is the hard data:

Synessticâ„¢ 5 (4.7 cSt) AN PDS
Synessticâ„¢ 12 (12.4 cSt) AN PDS

Esterexâ„¢ NP343 (4.3 cSt) POE PDS
Esterexâ„¢ NP451 (5.0 cSt) POE PDS

SpectraSynâ„¢ 4 (4.1 cSt) PAO PDS
SpectraSynâ„¢ 5 (5.1 cSt) PAO PDS
SpectraSynâ„¢ 6 (5.8 cSt) PAO PDS
SpectraSynâ„¢ 8 (8.0 cSt) PAO PDS

Main properties:

Synessticâ„¢ 5 (4.7 cSt) AN:

density = 0.908
KV40 = 29.0 cSt
KV100 = 4.7 cSt
VI = 74
Noack = 12.7%
aniline point = 32.0 °C (solubility, the lower the more solvent and cleaning power)
kauri - butanol (Kb) value = 31.0 (solubility, the higher the more solvent and cleaning power)
fluoroelastomer seal swelling = +0.8%
nitrile seal swelling = +14.1%
polyacrylate seal swelling = +17.9%

Synessticâ„¢ 12 (12.4 cSt) AN:

density = 0.887
KV40 = 109 cSt
KV100 = 12.4 cSt
VI = 105
Noack = 4.5%
aniline point = 90.0 °C (solubility, the lower the more solvent and cleaning power)
kauri - butanol (Kb) value = 10.0 (solubility, the higher the more solvent and cleaning power)
fluoroelastomer seal swelling = +0.4%
nitrile seal swelling = +0.1%
polyacrylate seal swelling = +1.2%

Esterexâ„¢ NP343 (4.3 cSt) POE:

density = 0.945
KV40 = 19.0 cSt
KV100 = 4.3 cSt
VI = 136
Noack = 4.6%
aniline point = < 20.0 °C (solubility, the lower the more solvent and cleaning power)
kauri - butanol (Kb) value = 62.5 (solubility, the higher the more solvent and cleaning power)
fluoroelastomer seal swelling = +4.7%
nitrile seal swelling = +16.9%
polyacrylate seal swelling = +27.4%

Esterexâ„¢ NP451 (5.0 cSt) POE:

density = 0.993
KV40 = 25.0 cSt
KV100 = 5.0 cSt
VI = 130
Noack = 4.6%
aniline point = < 20.0 °C (solubility, the lower the more solvent and cleaning power)
kauri - butanol (Kb) value = 72.0 (solubility, the higher the more solvent and cleaning power)
fluoroelastomer seal swelling = +12.7%
nitrile seal swelling = +25.0%
polyacrylate seal swelling = +51.2%

SpectraSynâ„¢ 4 (4.1 cSt) PAO:

density = 0.820
KV40 = 19.0 cSt
KV100 = 4.1 cSt
VI = 126
Noack = < 14.0%
aniline point = 119.2 °C (solubility, the lower the more solvent and cleaning power)
kauri - butanol (Kb) value = ? (solubility, the higher the more solvent and cleaning power)
fluoroelastomer seal swelling = ? (likely negative, seal shrinking)
nitrile seal swelling = ? (likely negative, seal shrinking)
polyacrylate seal swelling = ? (likely negative, seal shrinking)

SpectraSynâ„¢ 5 (5.1 cSt) PAO:

density = 0.824
KV40 = 25.0 cSt
KV100 = 5.1 cSt
VI = 138
Noack = 6.8%
aniline point = ? (solubility, the lower the more solvent and cleaning power)
kauri - butanol (Kb) value = ? (solubility, the higher the more solvent and cleaning power)
fluoroelastomer seal swelling = ? (likely negative, seal shrinking)
nitrile seal swelling = ? (likely negative, seal shrinking)
polyacrylate seal swelling = ? (likely negative, seal shrinking)

SpectraSynâ„¢ 6 (5.8 cSt) PAO:

density = 0.827
KV40 = 31.0 cSt
KV100 = 5.8 cSt
VI = 138
Noack = 6.4%
aniline point = 126.1 °C (solubility, the lower the more solvent and cleaning power)
kauri - butanol (Kb) value = 10.9 (solubility, the higher the more solvent and cleaning power)
fluoroelastomer seal swelling = ? (likely negative, seal shrinking)
nitrile seal swelling = ? (likely negative, seal shrinking)
polyacrylate seal swelling = ? (likely negative, seal shrinking)

SpectraSynâ„¢ 8 (8.0 cSt) PAO:

density = 0.833
KV40 = 48 cSt
KV100 = 8.0 cSt
VI = 139
Noack = 4.1
aniline point = 130.8 °C (solubility, the lower the more solvent and cleaning power)
kauri - butanol (Kb) value = ? (solubility, the higher the more solvent and cleaning power)
fluoroelastomer seal swelling = ? (likely negative, seal shrinking)
nitrile seal swelling = ? (likely negative, seal shrinking)
polyacrylate seal swelling = ? (likely negative, seal shrinking)

API Resource Conserving limits on seal swelling (minus means seal shrinking):

fluorocarbon rubber (FKM) = -2% min, +3% max
hydrogenated nitrile rubber (HNBR) = -5% min, +10% max
polyacrylate rubber (ACM) = -5% min, +9% max

Summary:

Group IV PAO has very poor solvency and cleaning power and it shrinks the seals.
Group V POE has the best solvency and cleaning power and it has the most seal swelling.
The thinner, 5 cSt Group V Synessticâ„¢ AN base stock approaches the solvency, cleaning power, and seal swelling of Group IV PAO.

In particular, the Mobil 1 High-Mileage 5W-30 (M1 HM 5W-30) came out of the calculator having a very low base-oil viscosity index (BO VI = 86) and as a result a very low base-oil dynamic viscosity at 150 °C (BO DV150 = 1.6 cSt). Its base-oil kinematic viscosity at 100 °C (BO KV100) came out to be 4.9 cSt. I interpreted this result as M1 HM 5W-30 having a very large amount of the 4.7 cSt Group V Synesstic™ 5 AN base stock, which has a low viscosity index (74) and excellent solvency, cleaning, and seal swelling. I would estimate the amount of the 4.7 cSt Group V Synesstic™ 5 AN base stock in M1 HM 5W-30 to be around 50% if not more.

Note that this not a proof. The only possible proof would be to do Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). However, if my interpretation is correct, the M1 HM 5W-30 has excellent cleaning and seal swelling properties. The Group V AN base stocks are also very oxidatively stable and you can have longer OCIs than with the lower-quality Group III synthetic base stocks. Use it if you have leaky seals or oil-consumption issues that you want to fix or you want to clean the engine and turbocharger deposits and engine sludge.

One caution is that if there is no Resource Conserving specification on the bottle, you probably don't want to use it newer engines, as the amount of the seal swelling is too high to be within the API Resource Conserving limits for the seals noted above.
 
Originally Posted by Shannow
I find it interesting that when I raised density in one of the other threads, regarding the placement of the 5W30 mobils in the HTFSV, I was poo pooed for the argument, as density is impacted on by more things than base oil, so was not a valid comparison...but now, here it IS valid.

,,,,hmmmm


It would be laughable, but their pick and choose is getting old.
 
From an economics POV, what is the cost of AN baseoils compared to other baseoils? I'm curious how this would impact the pricing.
 
Originally Posted by buster
From an economics POV, what is the cost of AN baseoils compared to other baseoils? I'm curious how this would impact the pricing.

Group V POE costs twice as much as Group IV PAO. Group V AN is in the middle between the two, costing roughly 50% more than the PAO.

Of course, Group IV PAO in turn costs a lot more than Group III and GTL.
 
Thanks Gokhan. So based on cost, wouldn't using a significant amount of AN drive the price up for the HM oils?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Gokhan
Mobil 1 has (mostly) improved the HTFS viscosity and VII content with API SP
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
19K
doublebase
Y
ACEA A3/B4 oils still relevant in 2024 for Turbo GDI 'High performance' Engines? - Hyundai ElantraN
2
Replies
39
Views
11K
mitsuman47
RugopsOP
Swapping Oils: Mobil 1 High Mileage to European Formula?
2
Replies
20
Views
7K
RugopsOP
6
Mobil 1 oil change and new recommendation.
2
Replies
28
Views
6K
Slow Car Sport Mode
C
AI, like chatGTP or Google's Bard. Laymen's oil questions and response
Replies
9
Views
2K
Cmobile
Back
Top